We find it hard to believe the tests went well. What could possibly be the reason to withhold tests that could be used by states to learn about the risks and possibly any safe ways discovered to perform Internet voting?

Who would benefit by withholding such data? Internet voting vendors? Proponents of Internet voting? Those who would like to compromise elections or intimidate voters?

From the complaint:

PIC has constructively exhausted its administrative remedies. EPIC asks the Court to order prompt disclosure of all responsive records…

Computer scientists have long expressed concern about the reliability, security, and integrity of online voting. E-voting “not only entails serious security risks, but also requires voters to relinquish their right to a secret ballot…

n 2011 FVAP requested $39 m to study online voting. In the budget request to Congress, DOD wrote “Funds will complete the kiosk-based system testing eval uation of results, and support similar tests on remote PC-based systems…

Later in 2011 , the FVAP deputy director stated publicly “We also did voting system test laboratory testing against the UOCAVA pilot program testing requirements to give us an assessment moving forward and perhaps provide some additional context as to where we are when it comes to security and overall usability of these systems as we move forward
with standards to support the electronic voting demonstration project. And then lastly of the completed objectives so far we also did penetration testing on those same systems, the electronic voting support Wizard as well as those systems that originally are (unintelligible) for Internet voting.”

When asked if the tests of the online voting systems that the FVAP were funding would be made public, the FVAP deputy director responded, “Not publicly available as of yet but it will be publicly available.”…

On August 13, 2012, California Secretary of State Bowen wrote to FVAP and requested the results of its tests of the FVAP online ballot marking systems. Secretary Bowen wrote, “California and the state’s military and overseas voters that may use such a system would benefit from being able to examine the results of any testing of ballot markingwizards arranged, paid for, or conducted by FVAP.”…

EPIC, and many of its expert advisors, believe that it is absolutely critical for the documents sought in this matter be disclosed prior to further deployment of e-voting systems in the Unit ed States.